Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:10 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:9mh5j2lii4196brlu0daol4c77it9v5gi5(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:51:04 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> But some Islamic extremists from countries _you_ describe as >>backwards are capable of destroying it. > > > I never said anything about them being able to destroy anything of > the sort. > > I would go so far as to say "do harm". Yet the actions taken do more "harm" to the Western Democracy than anything the Islamist have done? All they have done is kill people, which as you seem to demonstrate is no big deal. They cant take away your basic freedoms by killing people. You have to let them.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:12 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:2d27j2du12fjl3g2dp6996akgcroriqf6t(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:22:09 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:vh45j2tlovkq8ttgl53r2v9ei9kvq16cj3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:46:46 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >When does Bush get impeached ? >>>>> >>>>> Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >>>>> >>>>> >When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >>>>> >>>>> But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>>>> We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. >>>> >>>>Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be >>>>concerned about it. >>> >>> --- >>> But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up >>> the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't, >>> knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life >>> accordingly. >> >>While, in the main, I agree. For some people there is the moral imperative >>to do what is "right" despite the futility and the personal cost. >> >>In a democracy people are supposed to be able to affect things. I mean, it >>is the effect on the west of a small group of Islamic extremists that has >>got everyone's knickers in a twist here. > > --- > I agree. The tricky part is being able to tell the difference > between what you can change and what you can't, and learning to > adapt (change yourself) if what you can't change endangers you and > you consider your survival to be the ultimate morality. No one lives for ever. If you have to sacrifice what you believe is right to live another day, then (IMHO) you are eventually going to be disappointed. If people are giving their lives to "bring freedom" to the oppressed and defend our "way of life" it seems especially churlish to get all scared at home and sacrifice our freedoms and modify our way of life just to stay alive.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egvl52$8qk_005(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>> >>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably >>> fairly >>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may >>> have >>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar >>> Caribbean >>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. >>> However, >>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their >>> own >>> country. >> >>You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from >>such >>action for it to make sense though. > > Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead? > Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking. A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United States. >>Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really > wouldn't >>be very much in their interests to do this ! > > Why do you think this will happen? Haven't you been listening > to the UN debates about what to do with the latest sin committed > by N. Korea? Yes. They will posture. They will pass resolutions. They will establish sanctions. Pretty much as normal.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:17 <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote in message news:1160958932.302841.324250(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > science_for_jihad(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics, >> chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the >> Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness >> to travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required. >> >> Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address >> science_for_jihad(a)yahoo.com . The CV should contain information >> reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work >> experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to >> identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a >> birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate >> should also be provided, together with a working email address. >> Further instructions will follow. > > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > > BTW, did the further instructions follow? Sadly, no :-)
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 15:19
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:irOYg.11$GM7.10(a)newsfe04.lga... >T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:rsh5j25m4n4adb00is9jqmg5jgh7v47hae(a)4ax.com... >> >>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:57:05 +0100, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >>>>How did you intend "Were it a face to face confrontation, I'd just crush >>>>your pathetic twit throat with a single stroke." to be taken? >>> >>> >>> That was my response to YOU talking about how a fight between us >>>would turn out. You should see someone about that Alzheimer's problem >>>you are sporting, sport. >> >> >> Well, all I said was we could meet up - you were the first to claim you >> were going to "post edit my face." >> >> You then claim you will [insert various threat] and then back down. >> >> You are really funny. > are you sure he backed down? may he just threw in some bate, and is > waiting for you to barry your self ? I don't know what barry means in this context. Sorry. What ever his plans are, I will still be in the US next month. If he wants to "post edit my face" I will let him know where I am and he can try it. If he is just all talk, well, the status quo will remain and he will continue to sound off like he is born again hard. |